[Foundation-l] More stewards...

[Sean Whitton]

The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
position.

I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
influence in certain situations.

Thanks,
S

On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status to do
> office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one mentionned
> Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
>
> /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
>
> Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not simplify
> things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example, after
> new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
>
> Ant
>
>
>  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
> > to do so the the board members?
> >
> > There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
> > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
> > seems a little strange.
> >
> > S
> >
> > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
> >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
> >>
> >>Please see here:
> >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> >>
> >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
> >>removed.
> >>
> >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
> >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
> >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
> >>
> >>Ant
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
	—Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net